As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Would you support a UN military?
Ethan Smith
Origin name: Beart4toArlington, VARegistered User regular
Origin name: Beart4toArlington, VARegistered User regular
Let's say a hypothetical bill came into every nation, saying hey, the UN needs a military to function as a powerful international organization, and then asks for 2.5-5% of the military budgets of each member nation, and beyond that, 2-5% of all members in these armies or whomever will volunteer.
These troops would then be used in integrated units for peacekeeping missions in placed like India, Indonesia, Somalia, or other nations suffering through civil wars.
Would you support such an organization, and if not, are there provisions (directly related to the organization of the United Nations) that would sway you?
These troops would then be used in integrated units for peacekeeping missions in placed like India, Indonesia, Somalia, or other nations suffering through civil wars.
Would you support such an organization, and if not, are there provisions (directly related to the organization of the United Nations) that would sway you?
Ethan Smith on
0
Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_peacekeepers
Such an organization already exists, I'm saying would you support if this organization were to be expanded (over a period of time as to not generate insane amounts of waste which I would agree would occur if we just expanded an organization a hundred fold).
Would be nice, but the reality is that the political structure of the UN and the nations involved would completely demolish any attempt at effectively using a military in most cases. The peacekeepers have been occasionally successful, but mostly given orders that prevent them from doing anything to keep the peace.
I understand the UN is a clusterfuck and has limited if any enforcement capability. But the question hypothesizes that they would have such an ability.
Most of the world's ills are caused by wars fought between sovereign nations, often for stupid reasons. A UN military would drastically reduce those wars and potentially hold people like George W. Bush accountable.
I don't really see a downside. Having broader-ranging sovereignties (like the U.S. federal government over and above state government militias, or the EU over and above individual European nations) have pretty much always reduced violence moreso than if they didn't exist.
Ideally with similar accountability and limits of power as police forces have.
I think you're confused about what international law is.
I mean, I see international criminal law's relation to the laws of individual countries in the same way I see federal law to the laws of individual U.S. states.
I will grant you that international criminal law is a clusterfuck right now; so is the U.N. But there is obviously a common interest in expanding international criminal and even "civil" law where multinational organizations are concerned. Laws do not really exist unless they are capable of being enforced.
60 years ago, the countries of Europe were killing millions of each others' people in World War 2.
30 years ago, Europe was split down the middle between two seemingly contradictory ideologies/worldviews.
Now Europe has basically spontaneously unified itself, because individual countries realized they had more to gain from "opting in" to the Union than remaining fully independent.
I don't see why a hypothetical world government couldn't arise the same way.
Well of course not, not with that attitude!
I don't think this is even remotely true. If you look at the list of ongoing conflicts you will find that very few are actual nation vs. nation wars. Most of them are insurgences, rebellions, and the like. Most of the world's conflicts are nations fighting themselves or non-nation groups fighting nations. Nations fighting each other is rare these days. Even the Iraq and Afghanistan wars morphed into insurgences pretty quickly.
Second, I think it's a blurry line between "two sovereign countries fighting" and "insurgency vs. a foreign occupier." I would still classify Iraq and Afghanistan as sovereign vs. sovereign; the period of resistance after being "conquered" is longer now than it has traditionally been.
What could be different if there was a world government military? Afghans wouldn't see the invasion as an occupying force by a foreign power seeking to extend its sovereignty.
China and Russia are looking at you with amusement
also, India
I think the line isn't all that blurry. If no other country or international organization on the planet is willing to recognize your sovereignty, you are not a country. I understand that a large armed group with its own civilian supporters that controls some areas may look and act like a country, but that doesn't mean it is one according to the international law this UN-like entity would have to abide by.
True but we haven't gotten to militarisation yet, although it's on the way. and once it comes around I can imagine the issue is going to raise utter hell all over the continent, now imagine that on a global scale.
60 years ago: Nation A invades Nation B, fights a war for 4-8 years, at which point Nation B unconditionally surrenders.
Today: Nation A invades Nation B, topples government in three days, then spends 4-8 years fighting the remnants of that government and their allies in an "insurgency."
The reason why we all laugh at Bush's "mission accomplished" is because we know that's not how wars work now; that simply controlling a country's central government doesn't actually mean you win the war you're fighting.
really the entire G77.
NATO has joint defense clauses where your obligated to help defend other nations on their home soil but that rarely (never?) gets triggered.
Are you talking about something new where the UN has a standing army under it's direct command that it doesn't need to cobble together from countries who choose to participate on a given mission?
Edit: assuming you are I don't see this as a bad thing but that army will spend 99% of it's time dicking around while the UN argues over what to do with them.
In real life it would probably never be able to do anything that the US military can't already do by itself. At best it might legitimize some use of force by the US for peacekeeping missions.
The UN's governing structure is completely wrong to give it command of an actual military.
well, can't anyone on the security council (hello France!) veto something? Hence why I assume a UN military would spend 99% of it's time doing nothing.
Not really disagree'ing with you that it wouldn't funcion very well, I just imagine it wouldn't function for different reasons.
Also, as Thanatos pointed out, NATO or something like NATO would be better.
I do like the notion of giving teeth to international law, but so long as strong nations can be hypocrites with impunity it's just going to look like one more lever of power that they can pull.
Well, my question is this (and comes out of a lot of ignorance on the subject):
Would Rwanda and Darfur happen if the UN had the ability to step in and stop it with force?
Any violation of international law that would warrant a military response (piracy, genocide, slave trade on a national scale, invasion of another country, and...that's about it) can already be addressed satisfactorily by the national militaries already in existence. It's a matter of will, not capability, that prevents the international community from responding to things like genocide in Africa.
The only rationale for the UN having a military of its own would be if there was any reason to think the US or NATO was planning on committing violations of international law that force would be a reasonable response to.
Allowing countries like that any say in a military deployment is staggeringly dumb.
That's basically why I want a UN military.
I'm going to have to agree though, barring an existential threat or conquest, Earth will never have a unified government. The possibility for a new kind of superpower to eventually dominate all global politics is not out of the question, but even that wouldn't happen for a considerable period of time.
It does have the "ability" in a strict legal sense, if I recall. The problem is that the problems are redefined such that no one has to do anything. According to the U.N., the Sudanese government has not been pursuing a policy of genocide.
I do not believe that Rwanda and Darfur would happen if the U.N. would actually step in and stop them with force. If I recall correctly, there were actually enough troops in Rwanda to stop the genocide (prior to their being pulled out by their respective countries), but they were told to stand down. The issue is that the U.N. doesn't step in and stop these problems with force, and no one fears that they might.
Subtracting NATO from the UN military, you'd have a Russia/China/India(maybe not yet but soon) Vs NATO war. The tiny member states don't have the military capacity to project power. And because of how this army would be staffed/funded as soon as NATO left, if would probably collapse in on itself.
.....so WWIII?
I think that's kind of crazy. The U.S. is almost certainly ready and willing to take on any one comer who doesn't threaten with nukes (or something similar), and introducing some other power to counter the U.S. with force is just going to cause even more instability.
I'd suggest employing economic organizations to hurt the U.S.; I think it's silly to even think of employing a military against it.
The U.S. under Bush outright ignored international law in its invasion of Iraq. John Bolton (hilariously, Bush's envoy to the fucking U.N.) has said repeatedly that he doesn't think international law exists. Enhanced interrogation ... I mean, we all know the shit America pulled for the past 8 years.
If international criminal laws were enforced, maybe this shit wouldn't happen again when Republicans return to power. As it happens, there is a large portion of America that feels we can operate unilaterally, using deadly force with zero oversight or accountability. Something ought to balance this.
Even Russia, China, and India can't really project power internationally, except for their nuclear weapons. Hell, most of NATO can't either, without help from the US.
International is not analogous to domestic law and your comparison to federal-state relations does not apply as it's missing one critical thing: there is no supranational body beyond the level of the State. There is no enforcement on the international scale in the traditional sense of enforcement as an actor with the means to directly compel actions upon states.
That is not to say that International Law then cannot be enforced, though. International Law's enforcement mechanism functions on negotiation between states, norms, conventions, and repeated patterns of action to guarantee legitimacy. This would generally mean that older accepted doctrines of international law are pretty much accepted (ie- piracy is generally considered universally bad, slavery, etc.) but newer international conventions take time to become accepted as norms and things that it is in the best interests of all States to follow.
Edit: Your recent post mentioning Bolton. Bolton is a...neorealist. His conception of international law is that it should only apply where it benefits the particular state (namely the US) and should otherwise not be constrained.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12